As it concerns the age of the universe I responded to this matter earlier:

"14.5 billion yrs? I thought it was 13.7 billion years. Then again, Gamow said it was 20 billion yrs. So I guess it's eeny, meeny, miny, moe..."

More accurately, I have through the years seen such estimations as 10 billion ya; 12 billion ya; 12.5 billion ya; 13.7 billion ya; 14.5 billion ya, and Gamow's number of 20 billion ya.

Are you impressed with such accuracy? They obviously used the latest technological advancement in sundials:

Somehow, we lowly creationists are supposed to believe this....uh, at least one of them. Take your pick. But let me illustrate the gravity of the problem evolutionists have in their theories of the age of our cosmos;

The reader walks into a state police station near Omaha and asks, "How far is it to St.Louis?" So one officer tells you, "Oh about 300 miles." Another down the hall tells you, "about 225 miles". Yet another tells you, "It's about 500 miles". Lastly the officer at the front desk tells you,"It's 750 miles". Ridiculous? Yes. But stranger things have happened including the stellar astronomers conclusion about the age of our universe...by many magnitudes of ridiculousness. It's as if none of them even grasp what it means to change the age even a billion yrs let alone on a scale of 4,5,7, or even10 billion yrs. The credibility goes down every time they declare a different age 'according to measurement.'

Imagine trying to operate in a world of such 'certainty' that today a yardstick is 36 inches, but tomorrow it is 38.7 inches, and the day after that it's 34 inches, and yet still the next day it's 40 inches. In the real world respect for the authorities(i.e. the National Institute of Standards and Technology USA) who establish such measurements would be lost very quickly.

But just today I came across another winner. You all know that we've been told by stellar evolutionists that black holes exist. We've been told that those black holes have a gravitational pull that is so strong that not even light cannot escape when it crosses over a black holes 'event horizon'. Below is illustrated the black hole at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy:

But if what we're told is true then how is it that there is a plume of lighted gases shooting 27 million light yr above and below from the center of our galaxy, per the recent news report I posted below:

This artist's conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees.

This artist's conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees.

So if NOTHING can escape the massive gravitational pull of a black hole then how is the above phenomenon possible? And most of you know that this is by no means the only example. Just Google AOL image page on galaxies or black holes and you will find many such jets of light and gas doing the same thing. Where is therefore, the credibility in giving us facts that are completely contradictory to each other?

As far as I understand it, nothing can escape once it has crossed the event horizon. These gamma rays jets are produced when infalling matter gets compressed and heated up outside the event horizon in an accretion disc, so it's possible for these jets to escape.

As far as I understand it, nothing can escape once it has crossed the event horizon. These gamma rays jets are produced when infalling matter gets compressed and heated up outside the event horizon in an accretion disc, so it's possible for these jets to escape.

No. The light jets stem from the source, including the ones observed in these Chandra images:

Quote: Harvard astrophysicist Meng Su says "the jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, after a corkscrew-like magnetic field kept it tightly focused." "The gamma-ray bubbles were created by a wind of hot matter blowing out from the black hole's accretion disk."

It's not what I think it is; it is what your comrades in evolution think it to be.

A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[2][3]Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature. This temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass or greater. (Wikipedia)

Do not ignore what Meng Su of Harvard said, "the jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center"

20,000,000,000 lights years across is the old early 7o's estimate of the size of the universe.And, so that's how long it took light to cross it so that we see today what happened 2o billion years ago.But, how fast do stars move across space to get where the light came from?If we say it's 50% of the speed of light then the universe was 4o billion lights years apart back in the early seventies.

But, then they put the Hubble telescope in the sky and looked seven times further they man has ever looked before.And, saw that there was the same stuff out there as was seen close by. Looked the same. Same shapes. Same apparent ages. Hmmm...So, that meant that the universe was 14o billion light years across, if everything went there that quick.But, more like 28o billion light years away really.

But, then they upgraded the Hubble again and took a look seven times further and so...Well, you see what I mean.But, now they say it ain't no more than 13.7 billion light years aways, or, for massive slow travelers, 27.4 billion light years away.I guess that's because the Hubble didn't really look any further than mankind's eyes have gone before.

Anyway, the same old stuff is out there looking the same as the stuff that was seen before that, and before that.And, nothing is old n' cold, like a cinderblock, or dying embers.And, all the same ten kinds of galaxies are out there too.And, the well, they sure took a whole lotta fuel for the long trip, seems to me.

And, aint' it strange how light crosses such great distances for umpteen zillions of years and suffers no thermodynamic loss?Seems like it would loose some quanta some way or nother and drop in frequency bit by bit and end up fooling folks who think a shift to the red is a higher rate of speed, as if the universe could be expanding at a ever greater pace.

All that expansion being caused by a clever occultic pusher that leaves no heat signature or any smidgen of exertions while driving all the massive objects in the whole universe faster and faster, until...either, einstein's proven wrong, or someone comes up with a knew mathematical entity on a blackboard someplace.

It's not what I think it is; it is what your comrades in evolution think it to be.

A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[2][3]Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature. This temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass or greater. (Wikipedia)

Do not ignore what Meng Su of Harvard said, "the jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center"

OK, going back to your OP: "So if NOTHING can escape the massive gravitational pull of a black hole then how is the above phenomenon possible?"

It's possible because it come from the accresion disc around the black hole which is outside the event horizon. I'm not understanding why you think it's not possible.

How is it known to be gamma rays if they aren't aimed at us to detect? Scattering off all the dust that floats around black holes while light gets sucked in? Are the gamma rays bouncing of dust that wasn't blown away for 27,ooo,ooo years?

Since the angle is fifteen degrees off axis, then, apparently the black hole is not coupled to the galaxy.

Since, the stream of gamma rays is very straight, there doesn't appear to be a field around the black hole like one might suspect. And yet, there are the two perfectly shaped auras of something unrelated to the gamma ray jet activity.

And, the stream of gamma rays (if that is what they are) doesn't evidence any pulsation pattern as would occur if the black hole were fed discontinuous amounts of gamma ray fuel.

But, what is truly strange is that these gamma rays, that are supposed to have been travelling for 27,ooo,ooo years in straight lines, show no curvature evidencing any movement of the the whole galaxy in any direction for that whole length of time. And neither do the balloon structures evidence any distortion.

How is it known to be gamma rays if they aren't aimed at us to detect? Scattering off all the dust that floats around black holes while light gets sucked in? Are the gamma rays bouncing of dust that wasn't blown away for 27,ooo,ooo years?

Since the angle is fifteen degrees off axis, then, apparently the black hole is not coupled to the galaxy.

Since, the stream of gamma rays is very straight, there doesn't appear to be a field around the black hole like one might suspect. And yet, there are the two perfectly shaped auras of something unrelated to the gamma ray jet activity.

And, the stream of gamma rays (if that is what they are) doesn't evidence any pulsation pattern as would occur if the black hole were fed discontinuous amounts of gamma ray fuel.

But, what is truly strange is that these gamma rays, that are supposed to have been travelling for 27,ooo,ooo years in straight lines, show no curvature evidencing any movement of the the whole galaxy in any direction for that whole length of time. And neither do the balloon structures evidence any distortion.

Not only so but if all that comes within the event horizon is sucked into the black hole like a giant swirling toilet being flushed and all goes into some unknown oblivion then do we have the same thing occuring from the opposte side?....this??? Something's rotten but it's not in Denmark.

I think they prove that God, Almighty, made them in an extremely short span of time. And that's why no evidence of time is seen, which evidence should be exhibited by such huge structures requires ages of time to grow. It's called confounding the audience with a puzzle. Not confusing, mind you.

And, the Bible is the only ancient book I've ever heard of that speaks of powers in the heaven that are dissimilar to the ones on earth.

If you don't grasp what I'm saying about straight line emmissions from sources, consider the smokin train headed across the distant horizon.

So, what I think is that, since men are bent on explaining things in disregard of Almighty God, then they end up making up stuff that doesn't line up with all the facts that can be plainly seen with our eyes. And, that's how God proves out of the mouth of babes, just how blinded by biases intellectuals and simpletons alike can be.

So, if God makes various beautiful shapes with huge stuff to urge mankind to know of his power and majesty, poor, slovenly mankind pretends that it makes natural scientific sense to believe in dark matters, and dark forces, and invisible universe expansion powers that all fail to emit any heat energy whatsoever, (talk about efficiency).

Not only so but if all that comes within the event horizon is sucked into the black hole like a giant swirling toilet being flushed and all goes into some unknown oblivion then do we have the same thing occuring from the opposte side? ....this??? Something's rotten but it's not in Denmark.

You gotta have conservation of perfect balance even on the galactic scale I'm thinkin.

You gotta have conservation of perfect balance even on the galactic scale I'm thinkin.

Perfect balance? What happens to the light and matter/energy that is sucked through the black hole? But the same thing can be asked for what happens to the light, matter/energy that is sucked through the same black hole from the other side?

The physics for the event horizon is as follows:

The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass with a proportionality constant involving the gravitational constant and the speed of light: where: is the Schwarzschild radius; is the gravitational constant; is the mass of the object; is the speed of light in vacuum.The proportionality constant, 2G/c2, is approximately 1.48×10−27 m/kg, or 2.95 km/solar mass.An object of any density can be large enough to fall within its own Schwarzschild radius,[citation needed]where: is the volume of the object; is its density.

The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body (a rotating black hole operates slightly differently). Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole". The Schwarzschild radius of the (currently hypothesized) supermassive black hole at our Galactic Center would be approximately 13.3 million kilometres. (Wikipedia)

13.3 million km = to just over 8 million miles. That's the size of our Milky Way galaxy event horizon.

I don't argue with the physics. The physics seems O.k. but I do argue with the reality that astronomers are giving us. The math simply doesn't match the reality. If we have a black hole sucking in light, matter, and energy on both sides of the galaxial center then how is it shooting out light and energy out to 27 million light yrs?

I say they don't have a clue.

But we as believers in scripture are given a hint:

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.Ecclesiastes 3:11

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, Hebrews 1:3

Perfect balance? What happens to the light and matter/energy that is sucked through the black hole? But the same thing can be asked for what happens to the light, matter/energy that is sucked through the same black hole from the other side?

The physics for the event horizon is as follows:

The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass with a proportionality constant involving the gravitational constant and the speed of light: where: is the Schwarzschild radius; is the gravitational constant; is the mass of the object; is the speed of light in vacuum.The proportionality constant, 2G/c2, is approximately 1.48×10−27 m/kg, or 2.95 km/solar mass.An object of any density can be large enough to fall within its own Schwarzschild radius,[citation needed]where: is the volume of the object; is its density.

The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body (a rotating black hole operates slightly differently). Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole". The Schwarzschild radius of the (currently hypothesized) supermassive black hole at our Galactic Center would be approximately 13.3 million kilometres. (Wikipedia)

13.3 million km = to just over 8 million miles. That's the size of our Milky Way galaxy event horizon.

I don't argue with the physics. The physics seems O.k. but I do argue with the reality that astronomers are giving us. The math simply doesn't match the reality. If we have a black hole sucking in light, matter, and energy on both sides of the galaxial center then how is it shooting out light and energy out to 27 million light yrs?

I say they don't have a clue.

The light and matter being ejected by the galactic center is not being ejected by the black hole itself. The escape velocity of the event horizon is the speed of light. Outside the event horizon the escape velocity drops proportionally with distance:The escape velocity at the surface of the earth is 11.2m/s, where as the escape velocity at 9000km above the surface of the earth is 7.1m/s.So anything with a radius from the black hole that is outside the event horizon will be able to escape if it has the escape velocity. The matter and light being ejected comes from the accresion disc as it is heated by gravitational tidal forces. Light obviously has the escape velocity, and the matter can be accelerated to 99% of c.This is how it is possible.

The light and matter being ejected by the galactic center is not being ejected by the black hole itself. The escape velocity of the event horizon is the speed of light. Outside the event horizon the escape velocity drops proportionally with distance:The escape velocity at the surface of the earth is 11.2m/s, where as the escape velocity at 9000km above the surface of the earth is 7.1m/s.So anything with a radius from the black hole that is outside the event horizon will be able to escape if it has the escape velocity. The matter and light being ejected comes from the accresion disc as it is heated by gravitational tidal forces. Light obviously has the escape velocity, and the matter can be accelerated to 99% of c.This is how it is possible.

You're still are not documenting your case nor have you proven that the light jet stream occurs outside the event horizon itself. AND even if it did, what causes it? Furthermore, I was talking about the event horizon of our galaxy not a potential event horizon on earth. The event horizon of the Milky Way is, as I pointed out, a little over 8 million miles in diameter.

Another thing you haven't touched on: how can the same galaxy suck in light, matter, & energy from both sides of the galaxy at the same time and what happens to the material that is sucked in?

I think you're still guessing.

8 million miles in diameter:

P.S. You deliberately ignored what Harvard astrophysicist Meng Su said "the jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, after a corkscrew-like magnetic field kept it tightly focused." "The gamma-ray bubbles were created by a wind of hot matter blowing out from the black hole's accretion disk."

I think they prove that God, Almighty, made them in an extremely short span of time. And that's why no evidence of time is seen, which evidence should be exhibited by such huge structures requires ages of time to grow. .... If you don't grasp what I'm saying about straight line emmissions from sources, consider the smokin train headed across the distant horizon.

I was mistaken here. A straight line emmission of gamma rays, or light, should be bent away from a straight line, only, if over the time span of 27 million years relative motion occurred between the emmission rays and the galaxy. If none appears then, that means that the gamma rays and bubbles kept the inertia of the galaxy.

So, that would mean that the straight line of the ray emmission can't be used as evidence of a short time span.

And, so. the galaxy may or may not be moving.

This leaves me pondering two questions.

If anyone knows please advise me on the following two questions.

If the universe is thought to be expanding at a increasing rate does that mean that the acceleration whould distort what we see since that would present changes in relative motion between regions of space?

If the universe is thought to be expanding at a constant rate does that mean no observable distortions should be evidenced?

I was mistaken here. A straight line emmission of gamma rays, or light, should be bent away from a straight line, only, if over the time span of 27 million years relative motion occurred between the emmission rays and the galaxy.If none appears then, that means that the gamma rays and bubbles kept the inertia of the galaxy.

So, that would mean that the straight line of the ray emmission can't be used as evidence of a short time span.

And, so. the galaxy may or may not be moving.

This leaves me pondering two questions.

If anyone knows please advise me on the following two questions.

If the universe is thought to be expanding at a increasing rate does that mean that the acceleration whould distort what we see since that would present changes in relative motion between regions of space?

If the universe is thought to be expanding at a constant rate does that mean no observable distortions should be evidenced?

Could I kindly ask you to pay attention to the details of my posts on this matter and deal with the questions asked? I did not post this information in the attempt to prove a young universe. I posted it so that the readers would realize that evolutionary astronomy cannot always be trusted in their conclusions and the anomalies we see in space do not comport to their theories. This one is a huge problem for them and it shouldn't be hard to see.

I used the earth as an example of how escape velocity decreases with distance from the surface.

I looked up Meng Su and found this: http://www.cfa.harva...2/pr201216.htmlWhere it starts to explain how the jets and bubles formed. The line: "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"is not talking about the black hole itself.The infalling matter from the accretion disk heats up as it is subjected to frictional heating. Near the black hole it is hot enough to emit x-rays.The co-aurthor of the article Douglas Finkbeiner of the CfA goes on to say: "The central accretion disk can warp as it spirals in toward the black hole, under the influence of the black hole's spin," and then:"The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole, which may not be aligned with the Milky Way."

While this is currently the most accepted theory (more here: http://en.wikipedia....elativistic_jet) it still all happens outside the event horizon of the black hole.Matter will still fall into the black hole, but before it does some of it escapes via these jets.

As for the bubbles (from the article above):"The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets.

Both the jets and bubbles are powered by inverse Compton scattering. In that process, electrons moving near the speed of light collide with low-energy light,such as radio or infrared photons. The collision increases the energy of the photons into the gamma-ray part of the electromagnetic spectrum. "

I used the earth as an example of how escape velocity decreases with distance from the surface.

I looked up Meng Su and found this: http://www.cfa.harva...2/pr201216.htmlWhere it starts to explain how the jets and bubles formed. The line: "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"is not talking about the black hole itself.The infalling matter from the accretion disk heats up as it is subjected to frictional heating. Near the black hole it is hot enough to emit x-rays.The co-aurthor of the article Douglas Finkbeiner of the CfA goes on to say: "The central accretion disk can warp as it spirals in toward the black hole, under the influence of the black hole's spin," and then:"The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole, which may not be aligned with the Milky Way."

While this is currently the most accepted theory (more here: http://en.wikipedia....elativistic_jet) it still all happens outside the event horizon of the black hole.Matter will still fall into the black hole, but before it does some of it escapes via these jets.

As for the bubbles (from the article above):"The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets.

Both the jets and bubbles are powered by inverse Compton scattering. In that process, electrons moving near the speed of light collide with low-energy light,such as radio or infrared photons. The collision increases the energy of the photons into the gamma-ray part of the electromagnetic spectrum. "

If by "how can the same galaxy suck in light, matter, & energy from both sides of the galaxy at the same time"

You mean the black hole at the center of the galaxy can suck in stuff at the same time as spewing out jets, that's explained above

and "and what happens to the material that is sucked in?"Apart from adding to the black holes mass, I don't think anyone knows.

so to recap:The jets are caused by the magnetic field of the accretion disc accelerating matter along the black holes rotational axis outside the event horizon.

Really? Here is what your source said: "Although accretion onto supermassive black holes in other galaxies is seen to produce powerful jets in X-ray and radio, no convincing detection has ever been made of a kpc-scale jet in the Milky Way. The recently discovered pair of 10 kpc tall gamma-ray bubbles in our Galaxy may be a sign of earlier jet activity from the central black hole."

Well, friend, one can't get any more 'central' than that. But in addition to this you have an even bigger problem because it is not just the area within the event horizon that you have to worry about.

Quote: "Rotating black holes are surrounded by a region of spacetime in which it is impossible to stand still, called the ergosphere. This is the result of a process known as frame-dragging; general relativity predicts that any rotating mass will tend to slightly "drag" along the spacetime immediately surrounding it. Any object near the rotating mass will tend to start moving in the direction of rotation. For a rotating black hole, this effect becomes so strong near the event horizon that an object would have to move faster than the speed of light in the opposite direction to just stand still." (Wikipedia)

No matter how you cut it, light jets of energy and/or mass escaping from all of this is impossible. Yet there it is. So how could the same forces pulling in the light/energy/matter inside of the black hole with an irresistible force drag the very same kind of light/matter/energy in the opposite direction to the tune of 27 million light years....in BOTH directions; all from a black hole (plus the ergosphere effect) from which nothing can escape? And...we are talking about more than a mere 8 million mile diameter event horizon.

The reason our physics isn't working in such anomalies is because God Almiighty is making it happen. It is caused by something beyond the natural and He has made it obvious.

Another thing: about your fourth source; quote: "What could be causing this flaring? "We do not know for sure yet," says Madrid, adding that there are two broad possibilities."

You left that little quote out. But also: "One is that material flowing down the jet is ramming into a cloud of dust or gas at the location of HST-1 and glowing. The other argues that the magnetic field lines that keep the jet focused in a beam may get squeezed together."

In other words, they don't know. Why didn't you tell us that? If I did such a thing as a creationist I would be accused of 'quote mining'. That's the way it usually goes.

But also, you said, "You mean the black hole at the center of the galaxy can suck in stuff at the same time as spewing out jets, that's explained above."

No, it wasn't. Quote them. And then explain to us why you believe them.

Lastly, "and what happens to the material that is sucked in?"Apart from adding to the black holes mass, I don't think anyone knows."

So, you don't know what happens to all that matter after it is sucked in (from both directions!) while your comrades are honest enough to admit they don't know why the same kind of matter is shot out in the opposite direction and yet you are certain on this point?

Prove that the light jets originate outside the ergosphere....and then tell us how there is such a field of energy so far from the central core of the galaxy that can justify such a well directed double jet stream of light/matter.

But worst of all is what the scientists at MIT said about this: "Scientists can't pin down the process responsible for the bright radiation coming from Sagittarius A*, but suggest it could be a powerful jet of particles accelerated by magnetic fields around the black hole, or radiation pouring out of an accretion disk of matter funneling into the black hole.

In other words they don't know either. The quote with this picture says, "disk of material spiraling INTO black hole." Into? How can the light/matter be spiraling into and out from the black hole at the same time? You should be saying to yourself, "Houston, we've got a problem."